::I think more than a note is need for that. If you say that this claim in the Ukraine is disputed by other Orthodox Churches, when every recognized local Church recognizes that claim, this leaves an incorrect impression. It would be better to remove the Ukraine from this statement entirely, and then to simply point out that there are schismatic elements in the Ukraine that dispute the MP's authority. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 15:31, July 19, 2007 (PDT)

::I think more than a note is need for that. If you say that this claim in the Ukraine is disputed by other Orthodox Churches, when every recognized local Church recognizes that claim, this leaves an incorrect impression. It would be better to remove the Ukraine from this statement entirely, and then to simply point out that there are schismatic elements in the Ukraine that dispute the MP's authority. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 15:31, July 19, 2007 (PDT)

−

The canonical territory of the Church of Russia was defined in its Tomos of Autocephaly as the territory of "Moscow, Russia, and the Northern Lands" {{unsig|Aleks}}

+

The canonical territory of the Church of Russia was defined in its Tomos of Autocephaly as the territory of "Moscow, Russia, and the Northern Lands" {{unsigned|Aleks}}

Which Church disputes the MP's claim on the Ukraine?

The article currently reads:

The self-governing churches receive their chrism from the Patriarch of Moscow and exercise their activities on the basis of patriarchal tomos. This claim of jurisdiction is disputed by other Orthodox churches in a number of cases (particularly in Estonia, Moldova and Ukraine, as well as in the diaspora).

I am not aware of any recognized Orthodox Church that disputes the MP's claim to jurisdiction over the Ukraine. There are schismatic groups that no one recognizes that do, but not one that anyone does recognize.Frjohnwhiteford 13:07, July 19, 2007 (PDT)

For the Ukraine, the reference is to the (as I understand it) large schisms within that country. (I don't think any of the MCB churches have yet declared the people and churches in those schisms to be themselves non-Orthodox.) I do not believe that any of the MCB churches dispute the MP's jurisdiction in Ukraine (though at times there has been the impression that the EP might). Anyway, it's complicated, of course. Perhaps a note about the nature of the dispute over Ukraine would cover it. —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs 14:37, July 19, 2007 (PDT)

I think more than a note is need for that. If you say that this claim in the Ukraine is disputed by other Orthodox Churches, when every recognized local Church recognizes that claim, this leaves an incorrect impression. It would be better to remove the Ukraine from this statement entirely, and then to simply point out that there are schismatic elements in the Ukraine that dispute the MP's authority. Frjohnwhiteford 15:31, July 19, 2007 (PDT)

The canonical territory of the Church of Russia was defined in its Tomos of Autocephaly as the territory of "Moscow, Russia, and the Northern Lands" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aleks (talk • contribs) .